Over the years, there have been numerous studies of the history and role in cultural themes of the various erogenous zones of the body: how they relate to the state of society when this or that spot is heavily featured in advertisement, and what it means in the mental processes of the individual viewer. Which proves, once again, that taking Statistics courses in high school can produce long-range benefits.
Today, we are going to consider the subject of leg art, or specifically the art of female legs in stockings, in the world of postcards. This was fairly popular, partly because one of the golden ages of postcards more or less coincided with the Second World War, a proven haven for the legs as a focus of pin-ups, and second because it was a little easier than some parts of the body to feature on postcards. (Although those who have seen the numerous columns in this about postcards and the human situpon will know some were easier.)
Yes, there were those in the Victorian and Edwardian ages who would not even utter the word “leg”, preferring the somehow more acceptable “limb”. And yet these attitudes were not universal. Not only were stockings permissible (if a bit racy) but it was even possible as in this card mailed in 1906, to show stockings in action. (I doubt the nurse is putting that stocking on; she’s merely straightening it a bit, thus reviving her patient.
For pictures of ladies putting their stockings on (or just possibly taking them off), the postcard buyer largely had to wait for the next generation.
Bud Dudley, an artist we must discuss one of these days, frequently showed stockings on their way off.
Notice that in both cases, our heroine begins with the right stocking. Is this common practice (must watch tonight when I take off my socks) or did he just feel he got maximum leg to draw this way? (Also, those with eagle eyes will observe that his ladies are not in either case wearing garters, even though in the second card, Hubby is wearing his.)
I think we have alluded to this briefly before, but stockings have more uses than simply as leg coverings (or limb drapery.) Tucking a ;little mad money away in the stocking tops was well known at the outset.
And went on for generations. Was it shorter skirts or shorter stockings that led to most women abandoning this branch of the bank? (Speaking of limbs.)
Stockings did not always cooperate, of course. They could tear, if cloth, or develop runs, if constructed of sheerer material. Here is a perfectly innocent postcard, wherein our model is simply checking her stockings for any need of repair. An example of forethought and industry, and not intended to appeal to the prurient interests at all, at all.
We conclude on the note that it is not, ultimately, the overworked stocking itself which was the focus of any of these pictures. I’m sure there must be such things, but I don’t recall ever having seen a postcard showing a stocking with no one inside it. (Socks are another matter, darn ‘em.)
Blogsy Babbles 